bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
motulist
Aug 6, 11:32 PM
More photos
http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1941
http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1941
motulist
Aug 7, 01:07 AM
10am PST is 1am here.
Where the heck are you? Australia?
Where the heck are you? Australia?
Multimedia
Nov 18, 11:04 AM
Also, some uses of a program make it easy to use multithreading, and others don't. As an example, if you use Handbrake to do H.264 encoding, it is work for the developers to use multiple cores (it has been posted here that it uses three cores) for encoding a single movie, but it would be absolutely easy to use four times as many cores to encode four movies simultaneously.
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
puckhead193
Apr 12, 09:18 PM
http://twitpic.com/4k71a8
It does look like iMovie Pro.
It looks similar to the "a" word..... Avid
It does look like iMovie Pro.
It looks similar to the "a" word..... Avid
DPazdanISU
Aug 16, 07:35 AM
meh
give me an iphone pda type device with that deflatable mouse that can slide into a slot when not needed and gestures :confused: :D
give me an iphone pda type device with that deflatable mouse that can slide into a slot when not needed and gestures :confused: :D
yukyuklee
Feb 24, 01:04 AM
Here's my mbp setup.
firewood
Jun 22, 10:52 PM
I'm confident that you will not see any computers running both Mac OS and iOS.
I see one every day.
Just run a UIKit app in the iPad Simulator (from the free Developer SDK) on your iMac. There's even 3rd party code that will allow you to use the multi-touch on your iPad to control your app in the Simulator on the iMac. And some apps can run 10X faster and have a bunch more memory available when running on the Simulator.
I have a couple experimental apps that look and feel better this way than their Mac native versions.
It's even possible for a developer to package compiled Simulator apps for other people to run on their Macs, but Apple hasn't made that process easy (yet!).
I see one every day.
Just run a UIKit app in the iPad Simulator (from the free Developer SDK) on your iMac. There's even 3rd party code that will allow you to use the multi-touch on your iPad to control your app in the Simulator on the iMac. And some apps can run 10X faster and have a bunch more memory available when running on the Simulator.
I have a couple experimental apps that look and feel better this way than their Mac native versions.
It's even possible for a developer to package compiled Simulator apps for other people to run on their Macs, but Apple hasn't made that process easy (yet!).
Takuro
Apr 3, 02:04 AM
Not sure if this is new to DP2, but if you go to System Preferences -> Appearance -> Sidebar icon size
You can now make the sidebar icons large, medium, or small.
Here's a preview of "large:"
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9610/40411461.png
EDIT: This setting also affects Mail.app's sidebar icon size. It seems this is meant to act as a unified systemwide setting that multiple applications, not only finder, will rely upon.
The only real complaint I have about this feature is that "small" is 0.9x the scale of "medium," and "large" is about 4.0x the scale of "medium." In other words, "small" and "medium" are about the same size, and "large" is a big jump. Apple would have been better off to have made the three sizes a little more uniformly ranged from one another so that "medium" is a bit bigger and "small" becomes what "medium" had been.
You can now make the sidebar icons large, medium, or small.
Here's a preview of "large:"
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9610/40411461.png
EDIT: This setting also affects Mail.app's sidebar icon size. It seems this is meant to act as a unified systemwide setting that multiple applications, not only finder, will rely upon.
The only real complaint I have about this feature is that "small" is 0.9x the scale of "medium," and "large" is about 4.0x the scale of "medium." In other words, "small" and "medium" are about the same size, and "large" is a big jump. Apple would have been better off to have made the three sizes a little more uniformly ranged from one another so that "medium" is a bit bigger and "small" becomes what "medium" had been.
bommai
Sep 6, 05:40 PM
the tv has vga input on it so i just use that an the dvi to vga adapter to connect it to the mini. It's actually really good quality as it is right now. Happy with how it is, plus i don't feel like spending $50 on a single cable haha
You can get a HDMI cable on line for like $10. You should be able to get a DVI/HDMI adapter pretty cheap too. VGA is so yesterday.
You can get a HDMI cable on line for like $10. You should be able to get a DVI/HDMI adapter pretty cheap too. VGA is so yesterday.
caspersoong
May 3, 06:00 AM
I don't really think this is suitable... Just wait for Apple to modify it again into something that can wow us.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 19, 11:27 AM
the 256gb drive is pushing it for my needs. A 320gb flash drive or better yet, a 500gb flash drive in one of these babies would have me drooling. If they can get the prices down is the big question. Might need another couple years for that to happen.
256 should be perfect. If you need more space I'd say invest in a NAT or just external drive.
I do a ton of iMovie editing of trips n such and with itunes + movies + TV show's i'm only pushing 150gb right now on my MBP.
256 should be perfect. If you need more space I'd say invest in a NAT or just external drive.
I do a ton of iMovie editing of trips n such and with itunes + movies + TV show's i'm only pushing 150gb right now on my MBP.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 2, 09:17 PM
Keep up that attitude and continue wondering why no one talks with you as you type on your laptop in the middle of the coffee shop across from De Anza college. Sure, you may have helped get DB2 started and you still work in a DOS window but don't blame your wife for leaving you as you worked late at night too long. How much of the money from the IPO went to family attorney and court fees?
De Anza college? Is that anywhere near Faber College, Flounder? :cool:
De Anza college? Is that anywhere near Faber College, Flounder? :cool:
bigpics
Mar 24, 02:27 PM
My problem ... is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology—really good audio reproduction—is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there—and then threw it away!
All of what you said! Especially the part quoted -and the true nut of it that I took the liberty of bolding. The "dumbing down" of our ears continues apace.
And I forgot to mention things like what (even "HD") radio stations are doing to the signal - e.g., compressing nearly all popular music to a 20 db maximum dynamic range, and in some cases even speeding up the play (while "correcting" for frequency), allowing a better fit with their commercial breaks.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there—and then threw it away!
All of what you said! Especially the part quoted -and the true nut of it that I took the liberty of bolding. The "dumbing down" of our ears continues apace.
And I forgot to mention things like what (even "HD") radio stations are doing to the signal - e.g., compressing nearly all popular music to a 20 db maximum dynamic range, and in some cases even speeding up the play (while "correcting" for frequency), allowing a better fit with their commercial breaks.
illian
Jan 13, 08:29 AM
maybe this banner just refers to all the rumors that have been spread throughout the year:D..you could hear/read about apple's new notebook on the internet, tv and there are even some pictures and a name. so there is something in the air and in 2 days we'll find out what it is :rolleyes:
iGav
Mar 7, 05:30 AM
We won't see the success of the global Ford Focus until the 2012 Focus. Before the new model, the American and Euro Focus were completely different. Only thing they shared was the name.
But prior to that the Mk1 was the same in both the U.S. & Europe.
But prior to that the Mk1 was the same in both the U.S. & Europe.
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 10:10 AM
...my iPhone 4 still gets the best reception of any phone I've ever owned, regardless of how I hold it or whether or not it has a case on it...
Yes, of course that's the case for most people. But you'd never know that if you listened to the drumbeat of the media saying that this iPhone version too has reception issues (I say "too" because this is not the first model of iPhone where reception issues were blown out of proportion (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/18/iphone-3g-connectivity-affecting-2-of-customers-software-fix-soon/) to the percentage of users actually affected).
Yes, of course that's the case for most people. But you'd never know that if you listened to the drumbeat of the media saying that this iPhone version too has reception issues (I say "too" because this is not the first model of iPhone where reception issues were blown out of proportion (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/18/iphone-3g-connectivity-affecting-2-of-customers-software-fix-soon/) to the percentage of users actually affected).
matteo2005
Jan 13, 12:28 PM
I think it means over the air ipod touch/iphone syncing
shtoat
Apr 19, 01:26 PM
one a separate note: Who gave this article a negative?:mad: Probably someone wanting more iphone/ipad/ios rumours.:p
:)
:)
Herdfan
Apr 19, 04:08 PM
i wish they could wait and roll out the new imacs w/ Lion in June. im trying to hold out...its hard...lol
Actually glad they aren't. Then I can get the new iMac and upgrade to Lion when I'm/it's ready.
Actually glad they aren't. Then I can get the new iMac and upgrade to Lion when I'm/it's ready.
EagerDragon
Jul 19, 08:42 PM
Actually Vista is rather good in various areas in comparison to Windows XP SP2 and it is getting better as MS nears release (I use is it on various Windows developer systems I do work on and note my primary work is Mac development on Mac OS X). Don't discount Vista...
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Did you noticed you compared Vista to XP and said it was "rather good and getting better?
I agree with most of what you stated, but..... With all the carving that M$ performed on Vista, IMHO there is little reason to drive the current XP users to switch to Vista. Besides as you stated, it is likely to need a large numbers of users to upgrade in order to see some eye candy that looks cool.
You are using it, what will drive the sales?
Compare that to the % of users that upgraded to Tiger in the first and secon year and % wise Tiger was a lot more attractive that Vista will be to upgraders.
Leopard will be an even bigger hit.
But yes I agree with most of what you stated, but it sucks compared to Tiger and Leopard.
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Did you noticed you compared Vista to XP and said it was "rather good and getting better?
I agree with most of what you stated, but..... With all the carving that M$ performed on Vista, IMHO there is little reason to drive the current XP users to switch to Vista. Besides as you stated, it is likely to need a large numbers of users to upgrade in order to see some eye candy that looks cool.
You are using it, what will drive the sales?
Compare that to the % of users that upgraded to Tiger in the first and secon year and % wise Tiger was a lot more attractive that Vista will be to upgraders.
Leopard will be an even bigger hit.
But yes I agree with most of what you stated, but it sucks compared to Tiger and Leopard.
spencers
Nov 23, 04:54 PM
Two of these
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7010/3607031821d81ef5335b.jpg (http://img80.imageshack.us/i/3607031821d81ef5335b.jpg/)
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7010/3607031821d81ef5335b.jpg (http://img80.imageshack.us/i/3607031821d81ef5335b.jpg/)
Chris Bangle
Sep 5, 08:48 AM
2pm GMT
As i said earlier
As i said earlier
puma1552
Feb 5, 08:48 PM
For something creeping up on 15 years old, that thing is in fantastic shape. Mustangs are an odd car for me. I never seem to like them each time a new one is released, but then the older they get, the more I start to like them. A buddy of mine has a '93 Cobra with just a couple thousand miles on it, and I absolutely love it.
I read a story a while back about people and their music tastes. Many people never really get out of their 20's with their favorite bands. The stuff you like around that age is what sticks with you forever as your favorite. I think it might be something similar with cars. I see cars from back in the early-mid 90s, when I was in high school and then into college, and I get all nostalgic and stuff. Fox body 5L Mustangs, FC RX7s, C4 Corvettes, Syclone/Typhoon, etc. The older I get, and the older those cars get, the more I love them. New cars are nice, but some things just stick with you. And those cars are permanently stuck with me.
Treat that Stang nice Puma, because it is certainly a keeper.
Well said.
Yeah it's definitely been taken care of, both owners kept it for quite a few years each, both only putting about 6,500 miles a year on it. You can tell it's been garaged likely its whole life because the headlights and tail lights aren't hazy from sun exposure.
I remember when these cars were just 1-2 years old, basically factory fresh, and I would go to the dealer and drool over them under the lights at night--ones just like this, with these 17" wheels and leather. I've always loved them, and probably always will. I'm also a fan of the 5L cars, and the thirdgen F-bodies of the day (I own a thirdgen Camaro too).
I really can't wait to get it.:)
I read a story a while back about people and their music tastes. Many people never really get out of their 20's with their favorite bands. The stuff you like around that age is what sticks with you forever as your favorite. I think it might be something similar with cars. I see cars from back in the early-mid 90s, when I was in high school and then into college, and I get all nostalgic and stuff. Fox body 5L Mustangs, FC RX7s, C4 Corvettes, Syclone/Typhoon, etc. The older I get, and the older those cars get, the more I love them. New cars are nice, but some things just stick with you. And those cars are permanently stuck with me.
Treat that Stang nice Puma, because it is certainly a keeper.
Well said.
Yeah it's definitely been taken care of, both owners kept it for quite a few years each, both only putting about 6,500 miles a year on it. You can tell it's been garaged likely its whole life because the headlights and tail lights aren't hazy from sun exposure.
I remember when these cars were just 1-2 years old, basically factory fresh, and I would go to the dealer and drool over them under the lights at night--ones just like this, with these 17" wheels and leather. I've always loved them, and probably always will. I'm also a fan of the 5L cars, and the thirdgen F-bodies of the day (I own a thirdgen Camaro too).
I really can't wait to get it.:)
No comments:
Post a Comment